Summary
In Specht v. Commonwealth (8 Penn. St. 312, 323) the validity of a statute which prohibited "any worldly employment or business whatever on the Lord's day * * * works of necessity or charity alone excepted," was upheld, and again this was not done on the ground of enforcing religious observance of the day, but on the other ground that "All agree that to the well being of society periods of rest are absolutely necessary.
Summary of this case from People v. Klinck Packing Co.Opinion
October 6, 1982.
Motor vehicles — Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. § 1543(b) — Certified conviction record — Suspension of motor vehicle operator's license.
1. Where the Department of Transportation receives a certified record of conviction of driving while under suspension, the operator's license may, under the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. § 1543(b), be revoked for six months only, even though the operator should have been charged with driving while under revocation. [282]
Submitted on briefs September 13, 1982, to Judges ROGERS, WILLIAMS, JR. and CRAIG, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 861 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County in case of Commonwealth v. David Elwood Specht, No. 1688 1/2 of 1978.
Revocation of motor vehicle operator's license by Department of Transportation appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County. Revocation affirmed. ZEIGLER, P.J. Licensee appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed as modified.
John B. Schaner, for appellant.
Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Counsel, with him Ward T. Williams, Chief Counsel, and Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, for appellee.
In Smith v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 60 Pa. Commw. 319, 431 A.2d 401 (1981), this court recently decided that, where the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation receives a certified record that a driver was convicted under 75 Pa. C. S. § 1543(a) of driving while under "suspension," the department may withhold the operator's license only for an additional six months, under 75 Pa. C. S. § 1543(b), even though, in view of the facts, the conviction under the same Section 1543(a) should have been for driving while the license was revoked.
In this case, which involves the same situation, modification of the common pleas court order is necessary because the trial court did not have the benefit of our Smith decision when the case was decided.